Category Archives: Modeling

Bringing Research into the Classroom: Can Relevant and Impactful be Easy to Explain?

math-equation_chalkboard O.R. researchers and practitioners are constantly churning out papers that tackle a wide variety of important and hard-to-solve practical problems. On one hand, as a researcher, I understand how difficult these problems can be and how it’s often the case that fancy math and complex algorithms need to be used. On the other hand, as someone who teaches optimization to MBA students who aren’t easily excited by mathematics, I’m always looking for motivational examples that are both interesting and not too complex to be understood in 5 minutes. (That’s the little slot of time I reserve at the beginning of my lectures to go over an application before the lecture itself starts.)

Every now and then, I come across a paper that fits the bill perfectly: it addresses an important problem, produces impactful results, and (here comes the rare part), accomplishes the previous two goals by using math that my MBA students can follow 100%, while being confident that they themselves could replicate it given what they learned in my course (the optimization models).

The paper to which I’m referring has recently appeared in Operations Research (Articles in Advance, January 2017): The Impact of Linear Optimization on Promotion Planning, by Maxime C. Cohen, Ngai-Hang Zachary Leung, Kiran Panchamgam, Georgia Perakis, and Anthony Smith (

If I had to pick one word to describe this paper, it would be BEAUTIFUL.

I immediately proceeded to put together a 5-minute summary presentation (8 slides) to cover the problem, approach, and results. I’ll be showing this to 100 of my MBA students on this coming Tuesday (Valentine’s Day!). I hope they love it as much as I did. Feel free to show this presentation to your own students if you wish, and let me know how it went down in the comments.

A recent Poets & Quants article explains how business schools with the highest quality teaching strive to bring their faculty’s research into the classroom so that students get to learn the latest and greatest ideas. The O.R. paper above is a perfect example of when this can be done effectively.

1 Comment

Filed under Analytics, Applications, Integer Programming, Linear Programming, Modeling, Motivation, Promoting OR, Research, Teaching

How to Build the Best Fantasy Football Team, Part 2

UPDATE on 10/5/2015: Explained how to model a requirement of baseball leagues (Requirement 4).

UPDATE on 10/8/2015: Explained how to model a different objective function (Requirement 5).


fantasy-football-ringYesterday, I wrote a post describing an optimization model for picking a set of players for a fantasy football team that maximizes the teams’ point projection, while respecting a given budget and team composition constraints. In this post I’ll assume you’re familiar with that model. (If you are not, please spend a few minutes reading this first.)

Fellow O.R. blogger and Analytics expert Matthew Galati pointed out that my model did not include all of the team-building constraints that appear on popular fantasy football web sites. Therefore, I’m writing this follow-up post to address this issue. (Thanks, Matthew!) My MBA student Kevin Bustillo was kind enough to compile a list of rules from three sites for me. (Thanks, Kevin!) After looking at them, it seems my previous model fails to deal with three kinds of requirements:

  1. Rosters must include players from at least N_1 different NFL teams (N_1=2 for Draft Kings and N_1=3 for both Fan Duel and Yahoo!).
  2. Rosters cannot have more than N_2 players from the same team (N_2=4 for Fan Duel and N_2=6 for Yahoo! Draft Kings does not seem to have this requirement).
  3. Players in the roster must represent at least N_3 different football games (Only Draft Kings seems to have this requirement, with N_3=2).

Let’s see what the math would look like for each of the three requirements above. (Converting this math into Excel formulas shouldn’t be a problem if you follow the methodology I used in my previous post.) I’ll be using the same variables I had before (recall that binary variable x_i indicates whether or not player i is on the team).

Requirement 1

Last time I checked, the NFL had 32 teams, so let’s index them with the letter j=1,2,\ldots,32 and create 32 new binary variables called y_j, each of which is equal to 1 when at least one player from team j is on our team, and equal to zero otherwise. The requirement that our team must include players from at least N_1 teams can be written as this constraint:

\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^{32} y_j \geq N_1

The above constraint alone, however, won’t do anything unless the y_j variables are connected with the x_i variables via additional constraints. The behavior that we want to enforce is that a given y_j can only be allowed to equal 1, if at least one of the players from team j has its corresponding x variable equal to 1. To make this happen, we add the constraint below for each team j:

\displaystyle y_j \leq \sum_{\text{all players } i \text{ that belong to team } j} x_i

For example, if the Miami Dolphins are team number 1 and their players are numbered from 1 to 20, this constraint would look like this: y_1 \leq x_1 + x_2 + \cdots + x_{20}

Requirement 2

Repeat the following constraint for every team j:

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all players } i \text{ that belong to team } j} x_i \leq N_2

Assuming again that the first 2o players represent all the players from the Miami Dolphins, this constraint on Fan Duel would look like this: x_1 + x_2 + \cdots + x_{20} \leq 4

Requirement 3

My understanding of this requirement is that it applies to short-term leagues that get decided after a given collection of games takes place (it could even be a single-day league). This could be implemented in a way that’s very similar to what I did for requirement 1. Create one binary z_g variable for each game g. It will be equal to 1 if your team includes at least one player who’s participating in game g, and equal to zero otherwise. Then, you need this constraint

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all games } g} z_g \geq N_3

as well as the constraint below repeated for each game g:

\displaystyle z_g \leq \sum_{\text{all players } i \text{ that participate in game } g} x_i

Additional Requirements Submitted by Readers

I earlier claimed that this model can be adapted to fit fantasy leagues other than football. So here’s a question I received from one of my readers:

For fantasy baseball, some players can play multiple positions. E.g. Miguel Cabrera can play 1B or 3B. I currently use OpenSolver for DFS and haven’t found a good way to incorporate this into my model. Any ideas?

Let’s call this…

Requirement 4: What if some players can be added to the team at one of several positions?

Here’s how to take care of this. Given a player i, let the index t=1,2,\ldots,T_i represent the different positions he/she can play. Instead of having a binary variable x_i representing whether or not i is on the team, we have binary variables x_{it} (as many as there are possible values for t) representing whether or not player i is on the team at position t. Because a player can either not be picked or picked to play one position, we need the following constraint for each of these multi-position players:

\displaystyle \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} x_{it} \leq 1

Because we have replaced x_i with a collection of x_{it}‘s, we need to replace all occurrences of x_i in our model with (x_{i1} + x_{i2} + \cdots + x_{iT_i}).

In the Miguel Cabrera example above, let’s say Cabrera’s player ID (the index i) is 3, and that t=1 represents the first-base position, and t=2 represents the third-base position. The constraint above would become

x_{31} + x_{32} \leq 1

And we would replace all occurrences of x_3 in our model with (x_{31} + x_{32}).

That’s it!

Reader rs181602 asked me the following question:

I was wondering, is there a way to add an additional constraint that maximizes the minimum rating of the chosen players, if each player has some rating score. I tried to think that out, but can’t seem to get it to be linear.

Let’s call this…

Requirement 5: What if I want to maximize the point projection of the worst player on the team? (In other words, how do I make my worst player as good as possible?)

It’s possible to write a linear model to accomplish this. Technically speaking, we would be changing the objective function from maximizing the total point projection of all players on the team to maximizing the point projection of the worst player on the team. (There’s a way to do both together (sort of). I’ll say a few words about that later on.)

Here we go. Because we don’t know what the projection of the worst player is, let’s create a variable to represent it and call it z. The objective then becomes:

\max z

You might have imagined, however, that this isn’t enough. We defined in words what we want z to be, but we still need formulas to make z behave the way we want. Let M be the largest point projection among all players that could potentially be on our team. It should be clear to you that the constraint z\leq M is a valid ceiling on the value of z. In fact, the value of z will be limited above by 9 values/ceilings: the 9 point projections of the players on the team. We want the lowest of these ceilings to be as high as possible.

When a player i is not on the team (x_i=0), his point projection p_i should not interfere with the value of z. When player i is on the team (x_i=1), we would like p_i to become a ceiling for z, by enforcing z\leq p_i. The way to make this happen is to write a constraint that changes its behavior depending on the value of x_i, as follows:

z \leq p_ix_i + M(1-x_i)

We need one of these for each player. To see why the constraint above works, consider the two possibilities for x_i. When x_i=0 (player not on the team), the constraint reduces to z\leq M (the obvious ceiling), and when x_i=1 (player on the team), the constraint reduces to z\leq p_i (the ceiling we want to push up).

BONUS: What if I want, among all possible teams that have the maximum total point projection, the one team whose worst player is as good as possible? To do this, you solve two optimization problems. First solve the original model maximizing the total point projection. Then switch to this \max z model and include a constraint saying that the total point projection of your team (the objective formula of the first model) should equal the total maximum value you found earlier.

That’s it!

And that does it, folks!

Does your league have other requirements I have not addressed here? If so, let me know in the comments. I’m sure most (if not all) of them can be incorporated.


Filed under Analytics, Applications, Integer Programming, Modeling, Motivation, Sports

How to Build the Best Fantasy Football Team

Note 1: This is Part 1 of a two-part post on building fantasy league teams. Read this first and then read Part 2 here.

Note 2: Although the title says “Fantasy Football”, the model I describe below can, in principle, be modified to fit any fantasy league for any sport.

footballI’ve been recently approached by several people (some students, some friends) regarding the creation of optimal teams for fantasy football leagues. With the recent surge of betting sites like Fan Duel and Draft Kings, this has become a multi-million (or should I say, billion?) dollar industry. So I figured I’d write down a simple recipe to help everybody out. We’re about to use Prescriptive Analytics to bet on sports. Are you ready? Let’s do this! I’ll start with the math model and then show you how to make it all work using a spreadsheet.

The Rules

The fantasy football team rules state that a team must consist of:

  • 1 quarterback (QB)
  • 2 running backs (RB)
  • 3 wide receivers (WR)
  • 1 tight end (TE)
  • 1 kicker
  • 1 defense

Some leagues also have what’s called a “flex player”, which could be either a RB, WR, or TE. I’ll explain how to handle the flex player below. In addition, players have a cost and the person creating the team has a budget, call it B, to abide by (usually B is $50,000 or $60,000).

The Data

For each player i, we are given the cost mentioned above, call it c_i, and a point projection p_i. The latter is an estimate of how many points we expect that player to score in a given week or game. When it comes to the defense, although it doesn’t always score, there’s also a way to calculate points for it (e.g. points prevented). How do these point projections get calculated, you may ask? This is where Predictive Analytics come into play. It’s essentially forecasting. You look at past/recent performance, you look at the upcoming opponent, you look at players’ health, etc. There are web sites that provide you with these projections, or you can calculate your own. The more accurate you are at these predictions, the more likely you are to cash in on the bets. Here, we’ll take these numbers as given.

The Optimization Model

The main decisions to be made are simple: which players should be on our team? This can be modeled as a yes/no decision variable for each player. So let’s create a binary variable called x_i which can only take two values: it’s equal to the value 1 when player i is on our team, and it’s equal to the value zero when player i is not on our team. The value of i (the player ID) ranges from 1 to the total number of players available to us.

Our objective is to create a team with the largest possible aggregate value of projected points. That is, we want to maximize the sum of point projections of all players we include on the team. This formula looks like this:

\max \displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i} p_i x_i

The formula above works because when a player is on the team (x_i=1), its p_i gets multiplied by one and is added to the sum, and when a player isn’t on the team (x_i=0) its p_i gets multiplied by zero and doesn’t get added to the final sum. The mechanism I just described is the main idea behind what makes all formulas in this model work. For example, if the point predictions for the first 3 players are 12, 20, and 10, the maximization function start as: \max 12x_1 + 20x_2 + 10x_3 + \cdots

The budget constraint can be written by saying that the sum of the costs of all players on our team has to be less than or equal to our budget B, like this:

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all }i} c_i x_i \leq B

For example, if the first 3 players cost 9000, 8500, and 11000, and our budget is 60,000, the above formula would look like this: 9000x_1 + 8500x_2 + 11000x_3 + \cdots \leq 60000.

To enforce that the team has the right number of players in each position, we do it position by position. For example, to require that the team have one quarterback, we write:

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are quarterbacks}} x_i = 1

To require that the team have two running backs and three wide receivers, we write:

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are running backs}} x_i = 2

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are wide receivers}} x_i = 3

The constraints for the remaining positions would be:

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are tight ends}} x_i = 1

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are kickers}} x_i = 1

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are defenses}} x_i = 1

The Curious Case of the Flex Player

The flex player adds an interesting twist to this model. It’s a player that, if I understand correctly, takes the place of the kicker (meaning we would not have the kicker constraint above) and can be either a RB, WR, or TE. Therefore, right away, we have a new decision to make: what kind of player should the flex be? Let’s create three new yes/no variables to represent this decision: f_{\text{RB}}, f_{\text{WR}}, and f_{\text{TE}}. These variables mean, respectively: is the flex RB?, is the flex WR?, and is the flex TE? To indicate that only one of these things can be true, we write the constraint below:

f_{\text{RB}} + f_{\text{WR}} + f_{\text{TE}} = 1

In addition, having a flex player is equivalent to increasing the right-hand side of the constraints that count the number of RB, WR, and TE by one, but only for a single one of those constraints. We achieve this by changing these constraints from the format they had above to the following:

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are running backs}} x_i = 2 + f_{\text{RB}}

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are wide receivers}} x_i = 3 + f_{\text{WR}}

\displaystyle \sum_{\text{all } i \text{ that are tight ends}} x_i = 1 + f_{\text{TE}}

Note that because only one of the f variables can be equal to 1, only one of the three constraints above will have its right-hand side increased from its original value of 2, 3, or 1.

Other Potential Requirements

Due to personal preference, inside information, or other esoteric considerations, one might want to include other requirements in this model. For example, if I want the best team that includes player number 8 and excludes player number 22, I simply have to force the x variable of player 8 to be 1, and the x variable of player 22 to be zero. Another constraint that may come in handy is to say that if player 9 is on the team, then player 10 also has to be on the team. This is achieved by:

x_9 \leq x_{10}

If you wanted the opposite, that is if player 9 is on the team then player 10 is NOT on the team, you’d write:

x_9 + x_{10} \leq 1

Other conditions along these lines are also possible.

Putting It All Together

If you were patient enough to stick with me all the way through here, you’re eager to put this math to work. Let’s do it using Microsoft Excel. Start by downloading this spreadsheet and opening it on your computer. Here’s what it contains:

  • Column A: list of player names.
  • Column B: yes/no decisions for whether a player is on the team (these are the x variables that Excel Solver will compute for us).
  • Columns C through H: flags indicating whether or not a player is of a given type (0 = no, 1 = yes).
  • Columns I and J: the cost and point projections for each player.

Now scroll down so that you can see rows 144 through 150. The cells in column B are currently empty because we haven’t chosen which players to add to the team yet. But if those choices had been made (that is, if we had filled column B with 0’s and 1’s), multiplying column B with column C in a cell-wise fashion and adding it all up would tell you how many quarterbacks you have. I have included this multiplication in cell C144 using the SUMPRODUCT formula. In a similar fashion, cells D144:H144 calculate how many players of each kind we’d have once the cells in column B receive values. The calculations of total team cost and total projected points for the team are analogous to the previous calculations and also use the SUMPRODUCT formula (see cells I144 and J144). You can try picking some players by hand (putting 1’s in some cells of column B) to see how the values of the cells in row 144 will change.

If you now open the Excel Solver window (under the Data tab, if your Solver add-in is active), you’ll see that I already have the entire model set up for you. If you’ve never used Excel Solver before, the following two-part video will get you started with it: part 1 and part 2.

The objective cell is J144, and that’s what we want to maximize. The variables (a.k.a. changing cells) are the player selections in column B, plus the flex-player type decisions (cells D147:F147). The constraints say that: (1) the actual number of players of each type (C144:H144) are equal to the desired number of each type (C146:H146), (2) the total cost of the team (I144) doesn’t exceed the budget (I146), (3) the three flex-player binary variables add up to 1 (D150 = F150), and, (4) all variables in the problem are binary. (I set the required number of kickers in cell G146 to zero because we are using the flex-player option. If you can have both a flex player and a kicker, just type a 1 in cell G146.) If you click on the “Solve” button, you’ll see that the best answer is a team that costs exactly $50,000 and has a total projected point value of 78.3. Its flex player ended up being an RB.

This model is small enough that I can solve it with the free student version of Excel Solver (which comes by default with any Office installation). If you happen to have more players and your total variable count exceeds 200, the free solver won’t work. But don’t despair! There exists a great Solver add-in for Excel that is also free and has no size limit. It’s called OpenSolver, and it will work with the exact same setup I have here.

That’s it! If you have any questions or remarks, feel free to leave me a note in the comments below.

UPDATE: In a follow-up post, I explain how to model a few additional fantasy-league requirements that are not included in the model above.


Filed under Analytics, Applications, Integer Programming, Modeling, Motivation, Sports

Semantic Typing: When Is It Not Enough To Say That X Is Integer?

Andre Cire, John Hooker, and I recently finished a paper on an interesting, and somewhat controversial, topic that relates to high-level modeling of optimization problems. The paper is entitled “Modeling with Metaconstraints and Semantic Typing of Variables“, and its current version can be downloaded from here.

Here’s the abstract:

Recent research in the area of hybrid optimization shows that the right combination of different technologies, which exploits their complementary strengths, simplifies modeling and speeds up computation significantly. A substantial share of these computational gains comes from better communicating problem structure to solvers. Metaconstraints, which can be simple (e.g. linear) or complex (e.g. global) constraints endowed with extra behavioral parameters, allow for such richer representation of problem structure. They do, nevertheless, come with their own share of complicating issues, one of which is the identification of relationships between auxiliary variables of distinct constraint relaxations. We propose the use of additional semantic information in the declaration of decision variables as a generic solution to this issue. We present a series of examples to illustrate our ideas over a wide variety of applications.

Optimization models typically declare a variable by giving it a name and a canonical type, such as real, integer, binary, or string. However, stating that variable x is integer does not indicate whether that integer is the ID of a machine, the start time of an operation, or a production quantity. In other words, variable declarations say little about what the variable means. In the paper, we argue that giving a more specific meaning to variables through semantic typing can be beneficial for a number of reasons. For example, let’s say you need an integer variable x_j to represent the machine assigned to job j. Instead of writing something like this in your modeling language (e.g. AMPL):

var x{j in jobs} integer;

it would be beneficial to have a language that allows you to write something like this

x[j] is which machine assign(job j);

To see why, take a look at the paper ;-)

Leave a comment

Filed under Modeling, Research

Optimally Resting NBA Players

To celebrate the start of the 2013-2014 NBA season this past Tuesday, I decided to write a post on basketball. More specifically, on the important issue of how to give players some much needed rest in an “optimal” way. My inspiration came from an article by Michael Wallace published on on October 19. Here are some relevant excerpts:

After playing in the Miami Heat’s first five preseason games, LeBron James sat out Saturday night’s 121-96 victory over the San Antonio Spurs to rest…James said the decision to sit was part of the team’s “maintenance” process. Heat teammate Dwyane Wade played Saturday and scored 25 points in 26 minutes, but previously skipped three preseason games…”No, no injuries — just not suiting up,” James said. “It’s OK for LeBron to take one off.”

The key term here is maintenance process. You may also recall that, back in November 2012, the Spurs were fined $250,000 by the league after coach Popovich sent Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Green home right before a game against the Miami Heat.

So we want to rest our players to keep them healthy, but this cannot come at the expense of losing games. There are many factors to be taken into account here, such as players’ current physical condition, strength and tightness of schedule, and match-ups (how well a team stacks up against another team), to name a few. This is definitely not an easy problem. However, some insight is better than no insight at all. Therefore, let’s see what we can do with a simple O.R. model, and then we can talk about the strengths and weaknesses of our initial approach. (Here’s where you, dear reader, are supposed to chime in!)

Let’s begin with two simple assumptions: (i) when it comes to resting, we have to take players’ individual needs into account, i.e., we’ll use player-specific data; and (ii) when it comes to the likelihood of beating an opposing team, it’s better to think in terms of full lineups, rather than in terms of individual players, i.e., we’ll use lineup-specific data. The data in assumption (i) comes from doctors, players’ medical records, and coaches’ strategies. In essence, it boils down to one number: how many minutes, at most, should each player play in each game, under ideal circumstances. A useful measure of the strength of a lineup is its adjusted plus-minus score (see, for example, the work of Wayne Winston and his book Mathletics). In summary, it’s a number that tells you how many points a given lineup plays above (or below) an average lineup in the league over 48 minutes (or over 100 possessions, or another metric of reference).

For the sake of explanation, I’ll pretend to be in charge of resting Miami Heat players (surprise!). I’ll refer to a generic lineup by the letter i (i=1,\ldots,8), to a generic player by the letter j (j= LeBron, D-Wade, …, Andersen (Bird Man)), and to a generic game by the letter k.

We’re now ready to begin. Fasten your seat belts!

What are the decisions to be made? Let’s consider a planning horizon that consists of the next 7 games (or pick your favorite number). So k=1,\ldots,7. For the Heat, the first 7 games of the 2013-2014 season are against the following teams: Bulls, 76ers, Nets, Wizards, Raptors, Clippers, and Celtics. For each one of my potential lineups i and each game k, I want to figure out the number of minutes I should use lineup i during game k. Because this is an unknown number right now, it’s a variable in the model. Let’s call it x_{ik}. Note it’s also OK to think of x_{ik} as a percentage, rather than minutes. I’ll adopt the latter interpretation.

What are the constraints in this problem? There are three main constraints to worry about: (a) make sure to pick enough lineups to play each game in its entirety; (b) make sure your lineups are good enough to hopefully beat your opponents in each game; (c) keep track of players’ minutes, and don’t let them get out of hand. The next step is to represent each constraint mathematically.

Constraint (a): Pick enough lineups to completely cover each game. For every game k, we want to impose the following constraint:

\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{10} x_{ik}=1

This means that if we sum the percentage of time each lineup is used during game k, we reach 100%.

Constraint (b): Choose your lineups so that you expect to score enough points in every game to beat your opponents. In this example, I’ll focus on plus-minus scores, but as a coach you could focus on any metric that matters to you. Given a lineup i, let p_i be its adjusted plus-minus score. For example, the lineup of LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Chalmers, and Allen in the 2012-2013 season had the amazing p_i score of +36.9 (you can obtain these numbers, and many other neat statistics, from the web site Now let’s say you have the plus-minus score of your opponent in game k, which we’ll call P_k. One way to increase your chances of victory is by requiring that the expected plus-minus score of your lineup combination in game k exceed P_k by a certain amount. Therefore, for every game k, we write the following constraint:

\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{10} p_i x_{ik} \geq P_k + 0.5

I want to emphasize two things. First, p_i can be any measure of goodness of your lineup, and it can take into account the specific opponent in game k. Likewise, P_k can be any measure of goodness of team k, as long as it’s consistent with p_i. Second, you’re not restricted to having only one of these constraints. If many measures of goodness matter to you, add them all in. For example, if you’re playing a team that’s particularly good at rebounding and you believe that rebounding is the key to beating them (e.g. Heat vs. Pacers), then either replace the constraint above with the analogous rebounding version, or include the rebounding version in addition to the constraint above. Finally, note that I picked 0.5 as a fixed amount by which to exceed P_k, but it could be any number you wish, of course. It can even be a number that varies depending on the opponent.

Constraint (c): Keep track of how many minutes your players are playing above and beyond what you’d like them to play. For any given player j and any given game k, let m_{jk} be j‘s ideal number of playing minutes in game k (make it zero if you want the player to sit out). When it’s not possible to match m_{jk} exactly, we need to know how many minutes player j played under or over m_{jk}. Let’s call these two unknown numbers (variables) u_{jk} and o_{jk}, respectively. So, for every player j and game k, we write the following constraint:

\displaystyle 48\left(\sum_{i \text{ that includes } j} x_{ik}\right) + u_{jk} - o_{jk}=m_{jk}

The expression “i that includes j” under the summation means that we’re summing variables x_{ik} for all lineups of which j is a member. We’re multiplying the summation by 48 minutes because x_{ik} is in percentage points and m_{jk} is in minutes.

What is our goal? (a.k.a. objective function) It’s simple: we don’t want players to play too many minutes above m_{jk}. Because this overage amount is captured by variable o_{jk}, we can write our goal as:

\displaystyle \text{minimize } \sum_{j=1}^{9} \sum_{k=1}^{7} o_{jk}

This minimizes the total overage in playing minutes. For a more balanced solution, it’s also possible to minimize the maximum overage over all players, or add weights in front of the o_{jk} variables to give preference to some players.

Now what? Well, the next step would be to solve this model and see what happens. I created a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that can be solved with Excel Solver or OpenSolver. You can download it from here. Feel free to adapt it to your own needs and play around with it (this is the fun part!). Because my model was limited in size (I can’t use OpenSolver on my Mac at home), the solution isn’t very good (too many overage minutes). However, by adding more players and more lineups, the quality will certainly improve (use OpenSolver to break free from limits on model size). Here are some notes to help you understand the spreadsheet:

  • Variables x_{ik} are in the range B18:H25.
  • Variables u_{jk} and o_{jk} are in ranges B56:J62 and B65:J71, respectively.
  • Constraints (a) are implemented in rows 27, 28, 29.
  • Constraints (b) are implemented in rows 33, 34, 35.
  • The left-hand side of constraints (c) are in the range B74:J80. This range is required to be equal to the range B47:J53 (where the m_{jk} are) inside the Solver window.
  • The objective function whose formula appears above is in cell J21.

What are the pros and cons of this model? Can you make it better? No model is perfect. There are always real-life details that get omitted. The art of modeling is creating a model that is detailed enough to provide useful answers, but not too detailed to the point of requiring an unreasonable amount of time to solve. The definitions of “detailed enough” and “unreasonable amount of time” are mostly client-specific. (What would please Erik Spoelstra and his coaching staff?) What do you think are the main strengths and weaknesses in the model I describe above? What would you change? Good data is a big issue in this particular case. If you don’t like my data, can you propose alternative sources that are practical? I believe there’s plenty to talk about in this context, and I’m looking forward to receiving your feedback. Maybe we can converge to a model that is good enough for me to go knocking on the Miami Heat’s door! (Don’t worry. In the unlikely event they open the door, I’ll share the consulting fees.)


Filed under Applications, Linear Programming, Modeling, Motivation, Sports

Snapple Fact 804: How Many Ways to Make Change for a Dollar?

220px-LineartPresRevI went camping this past weekend (my first time) and my neighbor (who’s actually my neighbor in real life and was my neighbor at the camp site) was drinking a Snapple and read the following fact back to me:

Snapple Real Fact #804: There are 293 ways to make change for a dollar.

My first reaction was “Mmm…interesting”, but I couldn’t help wondering whether the Snapple folks did their math correctly. So after I got home and unpacked the car, I wrote a little Constraint Programming code in Comet to check this fact. It turns out that the number is indeed 293 if the following two things are allowed: (i) returning a 1-dollar coin in exchange for a dollar bill, and (ii) using half-dollar coins which, in my opinion, are rare these days. Here’s a list of the 292 ways that do not include using a 1-dollar coin which, in my opinion, isn’t really “giving change”.

If you’re wondering how many ways there are when you’re not allowed to use 1-dollar or half-dollar coins, the answer is 242. Here’s a list of all such possible ways.

Update: A friend asked me what the number would be if we considered the quarters from each of the 50 states as a different coin. In that case the number of possible ways increases to 515,184 (including the 1-dollar coin).

1 Comment

Filed under Constraint Programming, Modeling

What Do Locker Rooms, Airplanes, and Urinals Have in Common?

If you go (or have ever gone) to a reasonably large gym, you might have encountered the typical locker room changing area. It looks like this:


If you go to the gym regularly (or have been a regular gym goer at some point in your life), you might have noticed an issue that arises with some frequency: the locker you’re trying to access is very close to one in front of which someone else is standing (because their locker is right next to yours). I’ll refer to this phenomenon as interference. Interference is annoying because it creates that awkward situation in which you stand there trying to be polite and wait for the other person to finish, while at the same time getting upset because you’re wasting your precious time: “Man, I was hoping to be finished with my workout in 45 minutes. I gotta go back to the office and work on that integer programming model. Why does this guy take so long to tie his shoes?”

Interference occurs in other places, of course; hence the title of this post. When boarding planes, airlines try to be as efficient as possible, that is, they try to get everyone in their seats and ready to go in the shortest possible time. What is interference during the boarding of a plane? It’s when passengers that are standing in the aisle (e.g., because they’re still trying to put their carry-on in the overhead bin) block the passage of other passengers whose seats are further down the aisle. You might think that the obvious solution is to board everyone starting from the back of the plane towards the front, right? Well, maybe. Back-to-front boarding is intuitively good, but there are other issues at play: some passengers have priority, not everyone is there when boarding starts, etc. Another strategy that seems to work well is a hybrid of back-to-front with window-to-aisle. As you might have guessed, people have used optimization and simulation to try and come up with good boarding strategies. One of these studies was published in the journal Interfaces in 2005: “America West Airlines Develops Efficient Boarding Strategies”. This is an interesting read, and I recommend it.

Where else does interference occur? This XKCD blog post talks about the International Choice of Urinal Protocol:

…the basic premise is that the first guy picks an end urinal, and every subsequent guy chooses the urinal which puts him furthest from anyone else peeing.  At least one buffer urinal is required between any two guys or Awkwardness ensues.

Randall then proceeds to analyze this protocol and concludes that it suffers from a problem of underutilization of the available urinals, depending on how many of them there are. However, if guys are smart when picking urinals, they can achieve the optimal utilization (50%).

Now back to the locker room interference problem (which is the one that bothers me most lately). Let’s try to figure out the source of the problem and propose a solution to it. When you arrive at the University of Miami gym (known as the Wellness Center), you hand in your ID to an attendant who, in return, hands you a key that’s taken from a set of drawers that look like this (men’s lockers on the left, women’s on the right):


A key comes out of the drawer and your ID goes in. Interference is created because the attendants do not (and cannot) remember which keys they have handed out recently and what the layout of the locker room looks like. (By the way, locker numbers are not in perfect sequence in the Wellness Center; numbers jump around and you frequently see people who are lost looking for their lockers.) Ideally, what we’d like to happen is for keys to be handed out in such a way that they send the next person to a locker that is far away from the last few lockers that were given away. There are other complicating issues, of course, such as the fact that you cannot control the people who are returning from their workouts, but at least you can reduce interference among new arrivals.

We don’t need to write a mathematical model for this (or do we?). Why not pre-calculate an optimal sequence of locker hand-outs (based on the locker room layout), sort the drawers in that sequence (left to right, top to bottom), and have the attendants hand out keys in this order, cycling back to the top after they reach the last drawer? It won’t be perfect, but it sure will be better than the current system.


Filed under Applications, Heuristics, Modeling